- 9 -
maintained the residence. See id. He testified that his “rent
arrangements are nominal,” and that he provides help around the
house for his elderly parents. Any expenses petitioner incurred
while away from Aliquippa in 1996 were not traveling expenses
within the meaning of section 162(a)(2) and are not deductible
thereunder. See id.
We hold that petitioner is not entitled to a deduction in
any amount for employee business expenses.
The third issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable
for the section 6654(a) addition to tax for failure to make
estimated Federal income tax payments for 1996. This Court has
jurisdiction to review respondent’s determination of this
addition to tax only if the taxpayer does not file a return for
the taxable year. Sec. 6665(b)(2); Meyer v. Commissioner, 97
T.C. 555, 562 (1991). In this case, petitioner did not file the
return until after the petition had been filed. However, the
stipulation clearly states petitioner did file the return on
October 12, 2000, and a copy of the return is attached to the
stipulation as an exhibit. We therefore lack jurisdiction over
this issue and cannot review respondent’s determination in this
regard.
The final issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable
for the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax for failure
to file a return and pay the tax shown thereon. Paragraph (1) of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011